Will there be a World War 3 in our lifetime?

[Reg]

Will it happen?

Why will/won't it?

How will it differ from the previous World Wars?

[Giggles]

It'll be over a lot quicker.

[GS]

We're in a post-nuclear age. There won't be a full-blown war, because why would anybody bother.

[Pepe]

No point to it, so no.

[ItalAussie]

I actually think there will. Possibly not the large-scale industrial conflict of WW1/2, but a conflict on which most of the world's armed powers line up on either side? I can see it. I also reckon that the chances of seeing a nuclear bomb used in anger within our lifetime (let's say the next 100 years, generously) are no worse than fifty-fifty.

As the Hiroshima and Nagasaki slip from being "a thing that happened in the lifetime of people we know" to "mostly an abstraction learned from history books", people will be desensitised to the visceral horror of the situation, and will start to entertain it as a potentially-useful combat tool. Especially if they start to construct and use smaller, "more-targeted" nuclear devices, because then they'll just scale up over time.

The biggest force for peace in the world is the globalisation of trade - you don't bomb your biggest trading parters. In the last year, we've seen populist rejections of globalisation in the UK and in Japan (critical, given the tenuous territorial issues they have with China), and the biggest one (the US) might be yet to come. I worry that increasing national isolationism will naturally bring back the sort of mindset that resulted in WWI. And the idea of WWI being fought with nuclear and post-nuclear weapons is a bit terrifying.

[Bartholomert]

Globalization is impossible to implement in the age of information where its unequal benefits are impossible to obscure.

WWIII will not be because of the reassertion of national sovereignty but due to the weakness of Western leaders, too afraid to do what's necessary to uphold order. Borders are a necessary complement to welfare states. Trump is vitally necessary or humanity will enter a dark age.

Ital is an out of touch idiot.

[elth]

Yes

Food/water pressure due to catastrophic climate change

Limited conventional warfare largely replaced by endless insurgency style tactics designed to weaken state strength rather than defeat opponents militarily. Genocide as a default response from all sides. Strong powers will win an existential struggle for remaining arable land and relatively stable environments, mass extinction of the rest of humanity.

[Byron]

Globalization is impossible to implement in the age of information where its unequal benefits are impossible to obscure.

WWIII will not be because of the reassertion of national sovereignty but due to the weakness of Western leaders, too afraid to do what's necessary to uphold order. Borders are a necessary complement to welfare states. Trump is vitally necessary or humanity will enter a dark age.

Ital is an out of touch idiot.

For someone who always talks about rationality and thinking for yourself, I'm amused that you have this God worship of Trump.

[Mazuuurk]

Globalization is impossible to implement in the age of information where its unequal benefits are impossible to obscure.

WWIII will not be because of the reassertion of national sovereignty but due to the weakness of Western leaders, too afraid to do what's necessary to uphold order. Borders are a necessary complement to welfare states. Trump is vitally necessary or humanity will enter a dark age.

Ital is an out of touch idiot.

No system, when it comes to human structures, is very good. They are all just less flawed than each other. But I personally can't think of anything that benefits the spread of wealth more than globalization and the spreading of information...? I mean what are the alternatives: Colonialism, or, like Ital says, military powers vying to use violence to increase their wealth...?

Because everyone tries to increase their wealth, and yes globilization of trade means some fat industrialist can sit and have his balls licked while 200 poor kids sweat in a factory somewhere, but, it's better than those 200 kids being slaughtered in some battlefield, or working as slaves, and eventually it'll help out the economy of said country - to some extent.


Yes

Food/water pressure due to catastrophic climate change

Limited conventional warfare largely replaced by endless insurgency style tactics designed to weaken state strength rather than defeat opponents militarily. Genocide as a default response from all sides. Strong powers will win an existential struggle for remaining arable land and relatively stable environments, mass extinction of the rest of humanity.

I think you're right. It scares me quite a lot.

Being a non-military power that prides itself on being "neutral", I'm just sat here waiting for the day when Russia decides to "annex" Gotland from us just like Crimea, and we'll be able to do fuck all about it. It'll be something like that, you know someone like Russia going one step to far, or North Korea actually getting one of their missiles off to the South, that'll just set people off.

But it'll happen when what happened in Syria (draught, etc) has happened on a much larger scale, perhaps across all of Southern Asia or even Russia or something like that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

There won't be, because America is still a military hegemon and will remain so. They could conquer China in a week if they really wanted to.

[Mazuuurk]

I seriously doubt that. I'm not entirely sure how these things work of course. But they really wanted to conquer Afghanistan as well, didn't they?

I suppose they more or less did conquer Iraq. I'm sure they could bomb the shit out if China from a distance and kill a few hundred million people - if they really wanted to - but everytime I've read about these things I'm sure I've seen that to conquer a country you need to have lots and lots of army on the ground, after all, and Chinas standing army is much larger than the US one, is it not?

[Spammer]

Why would you need an army on the ground?

To have people in the country would be a help if you want to try and take some responsibility for the aftermath, but I don't see why you can't do over a country completely from above.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I seriously doubt that. I'm not entirely sure how these things work of course. But they really wanted to conquer Afghanistan as well, didn't they?

I suppose they more or less did conquer Iraq. I'm sure they could bomb the shit out if China from a distance and kill a few hundred million people - if they really wanted to - but everytime I've read about these things I'm sure I've seen that to conquer a country you need to have lots and lots of army on the ground, after all, and Chinas standing army is much larger than the US one, is it not?

In Afghanistan they wanted to capture Bin Laden and 'liberate' the people from the Taliban or whatever, it was regime change with political goals rather than us vs them war. Lewis could give a much more reliable account than me though.

[Magic]

Yes

Food/water pressure due to catastrophic climate change

Limited conventional warfare largely replaced by endless insurgency style tactics designed to weaken state strength rather than defeat opponents militarily. Genocide as a default response from all sides. Strong powers will win an existential struggle for remaining arable land and relatively stable environments, mass extinction of the rest of humanity.

I'm hoping this is true, it's really the only way to make the world white through no real naughty cleansing or any shit. Bring on the drought. :drool:

[Magic]

I seriously doubt that. I'm not entirely sure how these things work of course. But they really wanted to conquer Afghanistan as well, didn't they?

I suppose they more or less did conquer Iraq. I'm sure they could bomb the shit out if China from a distance and kill a few hundred million people - if they really wanted to - but everytime I've read about these things I'm sure I've seen that to conquer a country you need to have lots and lots of army on the ground, after all, and Chinas standing army is much larger than the US one, is it not?

Don't believe the bullshit, America is still GREAT and the only world superpower.

[Disco]

Why would you need an army on the ground?

To have people in the country would be a help if you want to try and take some responsibility for the aftermath, but I don't see why you can't do over a country completely from above.

Depends what you mean by 'do over'. Randomly bombing stuff without any ground intelligence doesn't get you very far. Countries are big and bombs are relatively small, unless you're nuking the entire place which would be somewhat suicidal.

[Bartholomert]

There won't be, because America is still a military hegemon and will remain so. They could conquer China in a week if they really wanted to.

Just wait till the liberals start dismantling our military to pay for more social welfare programs because 'we live in an interconnected world and war is impossible'

And we need a supply of good strong Men to fill their ranks, each generation seems less and less equipped to fulfill that role.

[Bartholomert]

No system, when it comes to human structures, is very good. They are all just less flawed than each other. But I personally can't think of anything that benefits the spread of wealth more than globalization and the spreading of information...? I mean what are the alternatives: Colonialism, or, like Ital says, military powers vying to use violence to increase their wealth...?

Because everyone tries to increase their wealth, and yes globilization of trade means some fat industrialist can sit and have his balls licked while 200 poor kids sweat in a factory somewhere, but, it's better than those 200 kids being slaughtered in some battlefield, or working as slaves, and eventually it'll help out the economy of said country - to some extent.



I think you're right. It scares me quite a lot.

Being a non-military power that prides itself on being "neutral", I'm just sat here waiting for the day when Russia decides to "annex" Gotland from us just like Crimea, and we'll be able to do fuck all about it. It'll be something like that, you know someone like Russia going one step to far, or North Korea actually getting one of their missiles off to the South, that'll just set people off.

But it'll happen when what happened in Syria (draught, etc) has happened on a much larger scale, perhaps across all of Southern Asia or even Russia or something like that.

I'm not talking about whether it's 'good' or 'bad' but eventually societies will refuse to accept their own annihilation at the altar of globalism, and will reject the increasing inequality and profits for the well-connected crony capitalists in tangent with corrupt politicans orchestrating its expansion. It will be impossible politically to implement because the people will intervene in a democracy for their own self-preservation.

The only answer is a minarchy / libertarian society, but 3rd world immigrants are too fucking shit and our 'empathetic' liberal leaders are too afraid / spineless to allow them to suffer through a learning curve of adjustment. We are fucked. My only hope is that at least an authoritarian ethnonationalist like Trump would postpone the inevitable collapse of Western society for a few generations at least, and maybe, as Europe becomes a backwards hellhole those few generations might wise up to the impending threat and reverse the deterioration.

[Bartholomert]

I think within 40-50 years you will see a Muslim coup d'etat / insurrection across Europe to establish a Caliphate which will be lead to ethnic cleansing followed by mass deportations. Unclear whether the Muslims or the Europeans will be doing the cleansing.

[Magic]

Let's be honest here Muslims are absolute shit as a race, the Ottoman empire was a load of turd. They'll get fucking destroyed.

[Bartholomert]

Let's be honest here Muslims are absolute shit as a race, the Ottoman empire was a load of turd. They'll get fucking destroyed.

Militaristic, unafraid to die, absolutely certain in the righteousness of their cause and unshackled by feminism / progressive ideologies / human rights. I reckon it would be close.

Also for Gods sake, Muslims aren't a race.

[Magic]

It wouldn't be close for fuck's sake.

[Lewis]

Yes

Food/water pressure due to catastrophic climate change

Limited conventional warfare largely replaced by endless insurgency style tactics designed to weaken state strength rather than defeat opponents militarily. Genocide as a default response from all sides. Strong powers will win an existential struggle for remaining arable land and relatively stable environments, mass extinction of the rest of humanity.

I think this is possible (maybe not in our lifetimes), but it wouldn't be a World War would it? The developed nations, presumably having taken what they needed from everywhere else, would just wall themselves off and watch the rest of the world tear itself to bits.

[Bartholomert]

I think this is possible (maybe not in our lifetimes), but it wouldn't be a World War would it? The developed nations, presumably having taken what they needed from everywhere else, would just wall themselves off and watch the rest of the world tear itself to bits.

You would hope so but I don't think they have the resolve.

[Mazuuurk]

I'm not talking about whether it's 'good' or 'bad' but eventually societies will refuse to accept their own annihilation at the altar of globalism, and will reject the increasing inequality and profits for the well-connected crony capitalists in tangent with corrupt politicans orchestrating its expansion. It will be impossible politically to implement because the people will intervene in a democracy for their own self-preservation.

The only answer is a minarchy / libertarian society, but 3rd world immigrants are too fucking shit and our 'empathetic' liberal leaders are too afraid / spineless to allow them to suffer through a learning curve of adjustment. We are fucked. My only hope is that at least an authoritarian ethnonationalist like Trump would postpone the inevitable collapse of Western society for a few generations at least, and maybe, as Europe becomes a backwards hellhole those few generations might wise up to the impending threat and reverse the deterioration.

I don't exactly believe that globalisation is anihilating nations. Trump might make it sound like that in the US, but the truth is that US is just shifting towards an economy based on skill and competence rather than production, like many western countries. Anyway. Look at North Korea. That's where resisting Globalization will take you. Seems more like that's the way to annihilate your country, if you want to use such sensationalist terms.

Anyway, I'm sure some people will be fed up with some stuff and "rise up" for better or for worse at times. That seems to always happen throughout human history, empires rise and fall. The Roman one lasted for like 800-900 years or something, didn't it? Which is like 600 more than the US has even existed... doesn't mean anything, but who knows what'll happen. My bet is that globalisation is our best bet at keeping world peace, to some extent, though.

Of course, over-consumption, which ties into globalisation and capitalism as concepts, is kind of what is fucking up our planet, which is what we'll probably end up fighting about in the end, so yeah. I guess it can go either way. It seems the world is a complicated place.

[Magic]

It was much longer than that, but it shrank and grew during that time.

[Davgooner]

I know it wouldn't be required anyway, but it's a laugh to try and imagine current generations being conscripted as in WWI/II. Not a fucking chance.

[Bartholomert]

I know it wouldn't be required anyway, but it's a laugh to try and imagine current generations being conscripted as in WWI/II. Not a fucking chance.

We need mandatory military service.

[Bartholomert]

I don't exactly believe that globalisation is anihilating nations. Trump might make it sound like that in the US, but the truth is that US is just shifting towards an economy based on skill and competence rather than production, like many western countries. Anyway. Look at North Korea. That's where resisting Globalization will take you. Seems more like that's the way to annihilate your country, if you want to use such sensationalist terms.

Anyway, I'm sure some people will be fed up with some stuff and "rise up" for better or for worse at times. That seems to always happen throughout human history, empires rise and fall. The Roman one lasted for like 800-900 years or something, didn't it? Which is like 600 more than the US has even existed... doesn't mean anything, but who knows what'll happen. My bet is that globalisation is our best bet at keeping world peace, to some extent, though.

Of course, over-consumption, which ties into globalisation and capitalism as concepts, is kind of what is fucking up our planet, which is what we'll probably end up fighting about in the end, so yeah. I guess it can go either way. It seems the world is a complicated place.

'Globalism' =/= 'globalisation'. I think you can be a series of increasingly more interconnected sovereign states who trade and interact for their mutual benefit. I do not think you can do away with borders, cultures, languages, ethnic groups, and hold hands under a rainbow in a multi-cultural socialist world Utopian state.

[Mazuuurk]

Well, utopian things are...err....utopian. So yeah, that probably can't happen. What's your point?

[Yeldoow]

I think you can be a series of increasingly more interconnected sovereign states who trade and interact for their mutual benefit.

This.


I do not think you can do away with borders, cultures, languages, ethnic groups.

Leads to this.

The trouble comes if you try to force it.

[Bartholomert]

This.



Leads to this.

The trouble comes if you try to force it.

I disagree and moreover Humans in a democratic society will not accept it. Right now it is being pushed solely by the elites because they are the ones who benefit from such arrangements to the detriment of the populace. Hence the correction back towards Westphalian nation-state and nationalism across the world.

[Bartholomert]

Well, utopian things are...err....utopian. So yeah, that probably can't happen. What's your point?

MAGA

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2016/3/24/9a7e8f1ee3524ab29080b154bb982010_18.jpg

[Lewis]

We need mandatory military service.

Aren't you eligible for Turkish military service?

[Yeldoow]

I disagree and moreover Humans in a democratic society will not accept it. Right now it is being pushed solely by the elites because they are the ones who benefit from such arrangements to the detriment of the populace. Hence the correction back towards Westphalian nation-state and nationalism across the world.

It's not a case of accepting it, it's natural progress. Languages evolve , ethnic groups interbreed, cultures change and absorb other cultures. It is a slow process but if countries have a close relationship, constant interaction these things will bleed together more and more.

As I said if you try to force it to happen faster people will push back against it.

[Bartholomert]

Aren't you eligible for Turkish military service?

Yes. I would have proudly served but I refuse to participate in any capacity under this current regime. Maybe in my late 20s when I burn out from corporate law after Erdogan is toppled by a revolution.

Or I might just disappear into middle America, make my money as a big-shot litigator in the energy sector in Oklahoma, marry my bosses 8/10 sorority girl daughter from Oklahoma State, and call it a life. Honestly could go either way at this point.

[Smiffy]

.....

[Spammer]

Isn't that the premise of the baddie in Watchmen?

He uses aliens though, I think.

[Smiffy]

.....

[Boydy]

Yes. I would have proudly served but I refuse to participate in any capacity under this current regime. Maybe in my late 20s when I burn out from corporate law after Erdogan is toppled by a revolution.

Or I might just disappear into middle America, make my money as a big-shot litigator in the energy sector in Oklahoma, marry my bosses 8/10 sorority girl daughter from Oklahoma State, and call it a life. Honestly could go either way at this point.

As if the partner of an Oklahoma law firm is going to let his daughter marry a Turkish Muslim.

[Bartholomert]

As if the partner of an Oklahoma law firm is going to let his daughter marry a Turkish Muslim.

I pledged the only fraternity founded in the Antebellum South. I have no issues integrating / passing as just another American from Virginia.

Here's me in a camo hat:

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10984132_10206188398335666_6712162327357561427_n.j pg?oh=6598a528ea5942802cf7c8fff2cf45b2&oe=58208721

[Pepe]

Once we bred white people out of existence it will all be fine.

[Mellberg]

As if the partner of an Oklahoma law firm is going to let his daughter marry a Turkish Muslim.

The funny bit is mert giving up his cushy suburban number for a warzone.

[Magic]

That is just such an atrocious attire.

[Spammer]

I've never seen it and Google informs me it's a comic type film? Never had any interest in them.

Yeah there's a bit more to it than most though. I'd say it's worth a watch.

[Boydy]

Yeah, I generally think comic book films are a load of wank for overgrown manchildren but Watchmen is brilliant.

[Lewis]

'I'm Doctor Manhattan, and I'm right fucking sick of you people and your shite.'

[Disco]

It's 'aliens' in the book but they blame Dr Manhattan in the film.

[GS]

There won't be, because America is still a military hegemon and will remain so. They could conquer China in a week if they really wanted to.

Also this. American conflicts since WWII haven't been defined by 'total war'. What the Americans did to the Japanese would look like a tea party compared to what could they unleash these days if they fancied a bit of total war.

[elth]

I think this is possible (maybe not in our lifetimes), but it wouldn't be a World War would it? The developed nations, presumably having taken what they needed from everywhere else, would just wall themselves off and watch the rest of the world tear itself to bits.

I mean, they'll try but the sheer numbers of people desperate to get into whatever safety is left will be overwhelming.

It won't be a war in the traditional, conventional armies on the battlefield sense, certainly.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'm more of an optimist on that front. I reckon the third world will modernise, or be modernised, before it migrates en masse to Belgium. It's in everybody's interests for that to happen.

[elth]

I don't think the rate of catastrophic climate change will give them the chance to modernise, basically. Even though they're going to skip fossil fuels for the most part and skip straight to microenergy, they're going to be the first ones to get hit by total ecosystem collapse, and if you think the migration pressure from Syria is bad, imagine everyone* south of the Mediterranean and North of South Africa trying to rush the Alps.

*Obviously lots of them will starve first, but still.

[Bartholomert]

I don't think the rate of catastrophic climate change will give them the chance to modernise, basically. Even though they're going to skip fossil fuels for the most part and skip straight to microenergy, they're going to be the first ones to get hit by total ecosystem collapse, and if you think the migration pressure from Syria is bad, imagine everyone* south of the Mediterranean and North of South Africa trying to rush the Alps.

*Obviously lots of them will starve first, but still.

As if we won't develop technology to overcome these problems; necessity (and the allure of astronomical profit) is the mother of innovation.

[ItalAussie]

The real problems are the ones where in order to stop them, you need to address them before the consequences are felt. This is true in almost every aspect of life, because we're largely reactionary when it comes to dealing with problems. Necessity can do a lot of things, but it can't go back in time.

For example, the Great Barrier Reef is probably on a timer now. The damage didn't start to show significantly until this year, but realistically, we'd have had to start sorting out the problem many years ago in order to mitigate it. Bad luck, Australia.

[Mazuuurk]

...which'll probably open up a world of new problems for the coast it was protecting :(

Hope you know how to build levees.

[ItalAussie]

Well, it's not like reef ecologists haven't been warning us for the best part of a decade. It can only be coming as a surprise to people who deliberately ignored the people who knew what they were talking about.

[Mazuuurk]

To be honest, even I feel like I've heard about it for like 10 years, and it's not even remotely in my part of the world. People always used it as one of the earliest examples of what's going on with sea pollution in the world, it seems to me.

[ItalAussie]

It's a real tragedy. I go diving up there every couple of years, and it truly is one of the most spectacular places you'll ever see.

[Disco]

In my head it's one of those things (like the rainforests and tiger dicks) that's been endangered for as long as I can remember. I'm sure Attenborough was showing us vast swathes of dead coral more than 10 years ago.

[phonics]

In my head it's one of those things (like the rainforests and tiger dicks) that's been endangered for as long as I can remember. I'm sure Attenborough was showing us vast swathes of dead coral more than 10 years ago.

tbf it did take about 240 million years to form. The idea of it just disappearing in 10 minutes is a bit ridiculous.

[niko_cee]

Without wanting to board the crackboat of denial, wasn't there evidence (or some suggestion) that 'the reef' was shifting into deeper waters rather than just entirely disappearing? I'm sure I saw some JCU bod talking abut that once upon a time.

What is doing it anyway? Acidification? Farm pollutant run-off? Rising sea temperatures? All of the above?

I'm sure it has shifted location before, to an extent, with the movement of the shore line. Didn't the aboriginals used to walk out to bits that are now inaccessible to chuck their javelins at turtles and the like? And, on the flipside, you can still see/walk on the dead reefs that are now too close to shore to be viable.

[Disco]

There's crack on the denial boat?